Friday, September 28, 2007

MANY MUSIC CREATORS want to be exposed on the INTERNET! They join websites to present their music to the public and to get publicity.

What they don't know is that many of this websites, webcasters and companies are not run by people in the music business at all. They have just set up a website, as cheaply as possible and have no clue as to how to market music of any kind.

One such website claims to be run by a corporation which doesn't exist; it's really being run by a man who earns his money selling mundane products for home and business. He has no qualifications to be in the music business but had a few websites and domain names sitting around useless so thought he'd start exploting musical artists.

The user agreement on this website is a joke. Was it written by anone who knows anything about user agreements, the law or music? No, it was written by people who have a vacant space between their ears who stole bits and pieces from other use agreements.

The key question: does anyone listen to the music on the website. Maybe a handful of people who have no ability to do anything for any of the artists on the website. The website is just users listening to other users' music and none of those people know how to promote anything into a major career.

So, be careful when uploading your music to a website for exposure, you're not getting any where it matters.

Monday, September 24, 2007

THE RIAA HAS LOST ANOTHER BATTLE IN ITS WAR TO CONTROL EVERYTHING THAT PERTAINS TO COMMERCIAL MUSIC IN THE USA.

Tanya Andersen's attorneys fees motion in Atlantic v. Andersen has been granted by the Magistrate Judge to whom the question was referred. U.S. Magistrate Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas issued a 15-page decision in which he ruled as follows:defendant incurred substantial fees before the claims against her were dismissed, including those incurred to file her motion for summary judgment and to respond to a motion to dismiss her counterclaims with prejudice. During that time, plaintiffs were either unable to obtain, or chose not to produce, significant evidence to support their claims.....when plaintiffs dismissed their claims in June 2007, they apparently had no more material evidence to support their claims than they did when they first contacted defendant in February 2005..... Whatever plaintiffs' reasons for the manner in which they have prosecuted this case, it does not appear to be justified as a reasonable exploration of the boundaries of copyright law..... In this case, plaintiffs dismissed their claims before any rulings on any significant legal issues under the Copyright Act, or the factual issues associated with plaintiffs' claim. Choosing that course, on this record, should be deterred in light of its potential chilling effect on the public's access to creative works. If this were to become a more typical course in prosecuting the type of allegations faced by defendant, it is reasonably foreseeable that members of the public would be more hesitant to use the Internet to share creative works in general, regardless of whether their specific conduct violated copyright law or occupied an area yet to be addressed by copyright law.Copyright holders generally, and these plaintiffs specifically, should be deterred from prosecuting infringement claims as plaintiffs did in this case. Plaintiffs exerted a significant amount of control over the course of discovery, repeatedly and successfully seeking the court's assistance through an unusually extended and contentious period of discovery disputes. Nonetheless, after ample opportunity to develop their claims, they dismissed them at the point they were required toproduce evidence for the court's consideration of the merits..... this case provides too little assurance that a prosecuting party won't deem an infringement claim unsupportable until after the prevailing defendant has been forced to mount a considerable defense, and undergo all that entails, including the incurring of substantial attorney fees.The parties will be afforded an opportunity to file objections to the Magistrate's report, after which time it will be submitted to the District Judge for finalization.

Friday, September 21, 2007

Ever notice how vampires operate? They suck your blood all the while making you think that they are doing you the favor.

It really does appear that the RIAA and its net representative, Sound Exchange, operate under the same principle.

The RIAA has the Copyright Royalty Board under its thumb and appears to dictate web policy to that board, the RIAA tells webcasters what they will pay or else they go to jail or get sued. This seems to be coercion to me.

So, in effect, the RIAA sets royalty payments unilaterally, sucks the funds from the webcasters and makes them think that the RIAA did them the favor.

If the RIAA had its way, there'd be no webcasting at all. Each note of music would have to be bought from one of the RIAA's constituent members. No more free music of any kind, no more fair use would exist, nothing without payment. Pay through the nose, then give up your nose.

One thing that webcasters forget as victims of this policy, they could put a stop to it fast. Just stop webcasting music. When the public starts complaining to Congress to do something about it, perhaps the RIAA can be controlled by reason and not avarice.

Victimizers often forget that if they destroy the victim, their victimization ceases and they have no source left from which to suck.

Unfortunately, the so-called musical performance artists contribute to this victimization by profiting from the RIAA's activities, whether vicariously or otherwise. You can't take your profits with a clear conscience when the agency collecting for you is known to be set on destroying the source of those profits.

Musicians can create music without an audience, but do they really want that?

Thursday, September 13, 2007

I HEAR TWO INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT MICROSOFT TODAY:FIRST: THEY HAVE COME UP WITH A NEW "WATERMARKING" TECHNOLOGY TO EMBED IN MUSIC FILES BEING TRANSMITTED AROUND THE NET. THE PURPOSE OF THE NEW TECH IS TO EMBED A CODE IN THE FILE TO TRACK THE CONSUMERS WHO DOWNLOAD OR STREAM THAT FILE. THAT WAY THEY CAN TRACK IF YOU, THE CONSUMER UNLAWFULLY DISTRIBUTE THAT MUSIC FILE.SEE THIS ARTICLE ON CENTENINOPLE:We've discussed watermarks before, the little invisible pieces of data, which can be embedded into content for security purposes. And Microsoft may have just laid claim to the best one out there. HERE'S THE LINK:

SECOND; MICROSOFT IS SURREPTICIOUSLY "UPDATING" CERTAIN WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEMS LIKE VISTA AND XP. MS JUST UPLOADS, SILENTLY, FILES TO YOUR OPERATING SYSTEM WITHOUT TELLING YOU AND EVEN IF YOU HAVE IT SET TO "NOT UPDATE AUTOMATICALLY."THIS FROM ZD NET:Microsoft updating Windows without permission Adrian Kingsley-Hughes: Is your Vista or XP system set to not automatically update? Doesn't matter. Microsoft is fiddling with your system files -- without asking or telling you. Now that's one slippery slope. HERE'S THE LINK: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?cat=55&tag=nl.e539

About Me

Brian Lee Corber has been a California lawyer for more than 30 years. He practices law in a suburb of Los Angeles, representing everyday people who have no access to The High priced lawyers of Century City or Beverly Hills. Above all else he seeks the truth and fairness, which qualities are sorely lacking in the entertainment and music businesses. When Goliaths bellow and attack the Davids of the world, that's where you'll find Brian Lee Corber, holding a sling with a single, but mighty rock.